Slashdot Mirror
English High Court Bans Publication of 0-Day Threat To Auto Immobilizers
An anonymous reader writes "The High Court — England's highest civil court — has temporarily banned the publication of a scientific paper that would reveal the details of a zero day vulnerability in vehicle immobilisers and, crucially, give details of how to crack the system. Motor manufacturers argued that revealing the details of the crack would allow criminals to steal cars. Could this presage the courts getting involved in what gets posted on your local Bugzilla? It certainly means that software giants who dislike security researchers publishing the full facts on vulnerabilities might want to consider a full legal route."
It sure is a good thing that England controls the entire Internet and that no one anywhere will be able to publish this information now.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Security through obscurity does work, not very effectively, but it does. Or at least, the obscure system is more secure than the same system that is open.
For example - let's say I keep a backup key to my house buried somewhere in the yard or in a flowerpot ( there are many flowerpots and I chose one at random). While this is not as secure as not having the backup key, it is more secure than placing a sign indicating where the key is.
Same thing here - while the system is not as as it would have been if the vulnerability did not exist, if the exploit was published, then everyone would know how to hack it, even those who would not be able to come up with the hack on their own.
My car is too old to have a computer in it, but I use an aftermarket security "system" - I have to push a button (the button is visible and usually has another function) before I try to start the engine or it would crank, but not start. Now this would not be a problem for a competent thief - he would figure out how to circumvent this, it's not that difficult. However, some drug addict or a drunk teenager may just conclude that the car is broken and steal some other car instead.
Generally temporary injunctions like this are just until there is a full hearing. Volkswagen will probably have a fix in place by then, but the main purpose is to avoid doing irreversible damage until there can be a full hearing on the facts.
A temporary injunction is common in many types of cases and in no way indicates the court's opinion on the substantive issues. It's simply a recognition that they can't unpublish the information, so they need to wait until a decision is made before they publish. The same is often done with property disputes such as divorces. A temporary injunction orders both parties not to sell or otherwise dispose of the property until a decision is made as to ownership.
Ps - I don't care for the injunction. I would have preferred that the court hint at whether they think the case has merit, then let the researcher decide whether to release the information immediately, risking a successful suit for damages. The injunction, as a prior restraint on speech, is censorship. Still, it's best not to exaggerate the effect of the or intent of the injunction.
On the other hand, as these researchers learned, if you notify the company, they can get a court order against you. If you let the cat out of the bag without notifying them them, they can't really stop you. And if you figured it out, there is a good chance that the company knows about it already anyway. They simply don't have any incentive to correct it unless they know that the general public knows about it too.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Seriously, how do people this stupid become judges?
Seriously, how do people this stupid manage to find their way to /. to post a reply on a matter of which they have no understanding.
The Court imposed a temporary injunction presumably to either allow Volkswagen to address the security issue or allow Volkswagen to present its case for a permanent injunction or more likely to request sufficient time to correct the issue before the research paper is published. The judges acted in accordance with UK jurisprudence.
Yepp, the court fell for the oldest and most blatantely false argument of the full disclosure opponent.
The court assumes that bad guys don't already have this knowledge. From decades of experience in IT security we can conclude with near certainty that they do. What this provides is limited, short-term protection against those would-be thieves who don't, yet. Also, a false sense of security.
What would've happened if this had been published: The public would know, car manufacturers would (have to) scramble for a fix.
What will happen now: Nothing. The next model will be fixed, your current one will maybe get an update at the next maintainance cycle, but don't count on it.
The next years will be a great time to be a car thief.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org